NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELFINO JACOBO GOMEZ- No. 20-72494
GONZALEZ,
Agency No. A202-054-251
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Delfino Jacobo Gomez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance
and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d
1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Gonzalez’s
request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to be considered in determining
whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-
Gonzalez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an
applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Gomez-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gomez-Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 20-72494
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-72494